The FBI is Unconstitutional, Time to Replace With the NYPD and Put Hillary Away for Good

As the Clinton investigations continue to be shrouded in scandal, Comey has become a human punching bag beat up by Democrats and Republicans alike. How anyone, including the FBI could fail to see the horrors committed by the Clinton family is beyond me but Comey first bore backlash from the Republicans when he declared after the original investigation of Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents and information, that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her with any criminal violation.

Fast Forward a bit later, Democrats attack after Comey permitted the reopening of the investigation into Hillary’s use of personal servers to store and send classified material, the second round of a scandal that could prove fatal to Hillary ever getting in the White House. Liberals are somehow still failing to see that Hillary has done all of this to herself, she knew all of the rules and she broke them. Despite what Comey has had to say, whether she knowingly or unknowingly broke the rules is irrelevant. There was a “duty of care” and Hillary clearly failed and is guilty.

Here we are 9 days and 650,000 emails later, Comey releases a 3rd letter stating his original claim of not having enough evidence to pursue a case against the Clinton’s remains the same. Of course after all the Wikileak email dumps and the continued amount of scandalous information that continues to come to light, Conservatives are again in a uproar and rightly so. The FBI has failed Americans and we have little faith left in the system.

After all of this, a question still remains, why does the federal government have an armed police force with almost unlimited authority and the power to conduct most of its work in secret, without the oversight of the American people who they are suppose to serve?

And that my friends is the million dollar question. Let’s hope the NYPD, operating within the Constitution, can actually do their job and put Hillary where she belongs.

Alas, the FBI has become untouchable as you have seen in the last year or more.

According to a piece penned in 2012, “A Stasi for America,” reporter James Bovard painted a darker, less egalitarian picture of the FBI’s application of the law:

A ripple of protest swept across the Internet in late March after the disclosure that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was teaching its agents that “the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” This maxim was inculcated as part of FBI counterterrorism training. The exposure of the training material — sparked by a series of articles by Wired.com’s Spencer Ackerman — spurred the ritual declaration by an FBI spokesman that “mistakes were made, and we are correcting those mistakes.” No FBI officials were sanctioned or fired for teaching lawmen that they were above the law…. At least the FBI has been consistent. Since its founding in 1908, the bureau has rarely let either the statute book or the Constitution impede its public service. Tim Weiner, the author of a superb exposé of the CIA (Legacy of Ashes) has delivered a riveting chronology of some of the FBI’s biggest crimes with his new book, Enemies.

There’s no question that in its roughly 100 years of existence, the FBI has seen its reputation rise and fall.

McMaken recites a bit of recent history in support of his assertion that the creation and the continuation of the FBI as a federal secret police force is an assault on the liberty of the United States:

The reality and the romance, of course, have always been two totally different things, and it’s helpful to remind ourselves that it was the FBI that was in charge of the Waco massacre where 26 children were killed. It was the FBI that led the raid on Randy Weaver’s house where an FBI sniper shot a woman dead while she was holding a 10-month old baby. It was the FBI that spied on Martin Luther King, Jr., and targeted peaceful anti-war organizations for political reasons during the 1960s and 70s. It was the FBI that came of age arresting opponents of the First World War.

Naturally, in all of these cases, the FBI has actively covered up the facts and denied wrongdoing.

Next, the history lesson looks further back to the beginnings of the FBI to illuminate the transformation of the FBI from crime-fighting force (albeit no less unconstitutional) to powerful partner in the surveillance state:

Thanks to war hysteria during World War I, the FBI rose to prominence as Woodrow Wilson’s shock troops against “dissidents” (i.e., peaceful opponents of the war). Indeed, persecuting and prosecuting political enemies of the American state would become something of the forte of the FBI, with the role of the agency being expanded ever more during times of perceived national crisis. The idea of the FBI as a crime-fighting organization — the primary message of fawning treatments of the FBI such as The Untouchables and The FBI Story — for decades served as cover for the FBI’s political activities. As Foreign Policypointed out in 2014, though, the FBI quietly dropped its claims of being a crime fighting organization and began declaring itself a “national security” organization. Down the memory hole goes the FBI’s original claimed raison d’etre.

This point is borne out in the FBI’s own description of its purpose. On the “Questions and Answers” section of its official web page, the agency describes itself as “an intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities.”

Where, one wonders, does the Constitution grant the federal government or any of its associated agencies any intelligence gathering and federal law-enforcement power?

Finally, not only is the FBI’s assumption of its current role as federal police force and armed branch of the federal surveillance apparatus unconstitutional and a persistent threat to freedom, but it represents yet another example of the inability of the government to perform any task on par with a privately owned entity with the same or similar objective. Again, from the Mises Wire: “The unreliability of metropolitan police, with their strong local and partisan ties, prompted major businesses and industrialists to establish the Pinkertons and other private police forces. The Pinkertons ultimately functioned as a de facto national detective and policing service until the 1920s, when the FBI finally came into its own.”

As one scandal blends into the next, and as each generation sees the occurrence of some serious act of FBI abuse of power, perhaps it is time to consider the abolition of the agency and the return of its assumed duties to the private sector.